Kuppuswami, J. - (1.) The appellant in the Writ Appeals and the petitioner in the writ petition is Mohd. Fiazuddin khan. By an order D/- 18-9-1951 the Deputy Custodian, Hyderabad, acting under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act declared him as an Evacuee and notified his property consisting of a residential building known as Golden Lodge situated in Red hills and an extent of Ac. 350-00 of land situated in the village of Atteli, Tahsil Medchal of Hyderabad District, as evacuee property. On appeal by the petitioner, the Custodian of Evacuee Property confirmed the order of the Deputy Custodian. On a further revision petition to the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property, the orders of the Custodian and the Deputy Custodian were set aside on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Act was invalid. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Custodian with a direction to issue a fresh notice, conduct a fresh enquiry and give a decision in accordance with the law. After remand, the Assistant Custodian again passed an order D/- 8-3-1954 declaring the petitioner to an evacuee and all his property as evacuee property. An appeal by the petitioner to the Additional Custodian was dismissed, as also a further revision to the Custodian-General of Evacuee Property. While dismissing the revision, the Custodian-General made the following observation in his order dated 17-8-1954: "Mr. Ali has very earnestly urged before me that his client has never been to Pakistan, except on that occasion and that all the members of his family are residing in Hyderabad and the petitioner himself has been in Hyderabad ever since his return. He fears that the effect of my order would be that the petitioner would be thrown out of his property. In this he is right, but I have no doubt that the Custodian would not dispossess the petitioner from the house and the holdings but would, in the peculiar circumstances of this case allot the house and the holdings to him". The petitioner filed a review petition before the same authority which was ultimately dismissed on 22-8-58. The petitioner, thereupon, filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab for quashing the order of the Custodian General and all the prior proceedings. The Writ Petition was dismissed by a single Judge and a Letters Patent Appeal against that order was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court even at the stage of admission. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court after obtaining special leave.
(2.) The only question that was raised before the High Court and before the Supreme Court was whether the notice issued by the Assistant Custodian to the appellant under S. 7(1) of the Act was in conformity with the provisions of the section and was valid. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 21-3-1961 rejected that contention and dismissed the appeal. The appellant sought to contend before the Supreme Court that even if the notice was good, on the facts of the case it could be held that the appellant had not left India on account of partition within the meaning of Section 2-D(i) of the Act and hence he was not an evacuee. But, the Supreme Court refused to allow the appellant to raise this point for the first time before them as it was not even raised before the High Court. After the dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the Custodian issued a notice to the petitioner on 5-4-61 to surrender possession of the property. The petitioner, thereupon filed W. P. No. 638/61 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Custodian of Evacuee Property to allot him the properties in pursuance of the order of the Custodian-General dated 17-8-1954 passed on the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. More than a year later he filed another petition W. P. No. 534/62 in which he again challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Asst. Custodian under Section 7 of the Act and also complained that the principles of natural justice had been violated in the proceedings taken by the authorities under the Act. He prayed that this Court may be pleased to call for the record relating to all the proceedings referred to earlier and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ.
(3.) Both the writ petition were heard together and by a common judgment, Justice Basi Reddy, dismissed the writ petitions with costs. W. A. No. 99/64 is preferred against the judgment and order in W. P. No. 638/61 and W. A. No. 100/64 is preferred against the judgment and order in W. P. No. 534/62.;